Re: LaRussa Back - McGwire May Be Hitting Coach

[NonProfitCow]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people honestly subscribe to the "he wasn't a good hitter because he had a low career batting average" theory or some such [expletive] about "pure hitters". Seriously, what is a hitter's goal at the plate? To help his team score runs, correct? By pretty much all accounts McGwire was one of the best of his time, if not ever, at helping his team score runs when he was at the plate. He got on base and hit the ball for extra bases (the two most important things that a batter can do) more frequently than just about anyone else in the game. That's the issue, plain and simply, and there really isn't any other way to look at it.

But, both of those things could be directly impacted by performance enhancing drugs. I.E. he hit for power because of the steroids, thus he was pitched around a lot. It might not be the case, but you should be able to see why people would think that.

 

What a ridiculous argument about the walks. He was such a dangerous hitter that pitchers felt they had to pitch around him (which is a point that I contest anyway- it is NOT always a decision by the pitcher that leads to a walk, there is such a skill as plate discipline and working a count), but that means that he isn't necessarily all that good because the only reason he got on all those times was because he was pitched around. backwards logic anyone? by that reasoning someone could hit a homerun literally every time they came to the plate, causing pitchers to eventually walk him literally every time he came to the plate. that person, by your reasoning, wouldn't be a great hitter at all because the only reason he was getting on all those times was because pitchers were afraid to pitch to him.

So you don't think that there was a correlation between his power and the amount of times that he walked?

No more than him being able to lay off balls and crush strikes. Pitchers didn't just fear him because he could hit the ball a mile, they feared him because he wasn't exploitable. There's a reason pitchers pitched to Dave Kingman and didn't pitch to McGwire.

[TruffleShuffle]

Pitchers didn't just fear him because he could hit the ball a mile, they feared him because he wasn't exploitable.

 

in his best year he struck out 155 times.

[artvandalay]

Pitchers didn't just fear him because he could hit the ball a mile, they feared him because he wasn't exploitable.

 

in his best year he struck out 155 times.

 

because everyone knows striking out automatically means you're a bad hitter, right? seriously, how many hitters do we have to see that strike out a ton yet still absolutely rake before we stop viewing striking out a lot as such a terrible thing?

[TruffleShuffle]

Pitchers didn't just fear him because he could hit the ball a mile, they feared him because he wasn't exploitable.

 

in his best year he struck out 155 times.

 

because everyone knows striking out automatically means you're a bad hitter, right? seriously, how many hitters do we have to see that strike out a ton yet still absolutely rake before we stop viewing striking out a lot as such a terrible thing?

 

Pitchers didn't just fear him because he could hit the ball a mile, they feared him because he wasn't exploitable.

[XZero771679666304]

Pitchers didn't just fear him because he could hit the ball a mile, they feared him because he wasn't exploitable.

 

in his best year he struck out 155 times.

 

because everyone knows striking out automatically means you're a bad hitter, right? seriously, how many hitters do we have to see that strike out a ton yet still absolutely rake before we stop viewing striking out a lot as such a terrible thing?

 

No one is saying he wasn't a good hitter, just that he wasn't a great one. Working the count is to his credit for sure, and if you threw him a pitch from middle to middle in, he'd mash it.

 

But he had limitations. He was not a guy who could take a pitch away and drive it if pitchers were staying away from him. He wasn't a dynamic hitter at all. The book on Mac was keep the ball away from his power, as long as you are willing to lose him, because he won't chase. But he wasn't the type of guy who scared pitchers because he could hit their pitch, even if they made it. You didn't have to worry about him jacking your breaking pitch on the outside black. You just had to make sure you stayed out there, or were willing to walk him.

 

The strike out thing was brought up because it was said he wasn't exploitable (not that he wasn't a good hitter), but when you strike out that much, you're being exploited somewhere. Someone like say, Albert Pujols is relatively unexploitable. To make a comparison, Sammy Sosa was, as we Cubs fans all know, quite exploitable. But during the 1998-2001 stretch, he was also a better hitter than Mac. Being exploitable =/= being a bad hitter.

[TruffleShuffle]

yup. if you want to see unexploitable, look at steroid-era bonds or ted williams. williams hit like .350 with good power and walked three times more often than he K'ed; his career high in K's was 51 in 150 games. mcgwire was a hitter you could get out with good pitches, but he wouldn't chase bad pitches unless he was behind in the count, and if you made a mistake he'd destroy it. mcgwire wasn't this force that drew tons of walks and was feared by every pitcher in the league until he was basically a steroid-inflated cartoon character that hit home runs at a rate never seen before.

[DanzaSlap]

But during the 1998-2001 stretch, (Sosa) was also a better hitter than Mac.

 

Based on what metric?

[Guest]

But during the 1998-2001 stretch, (Sosa) was also a better hitter than Mac.

 

Based on what metric?

 

BA, I guess.

 

McGwire's OPS those four years was 1.112 to Sammy's 1.058, and that include's 2001 when McGwire started to fall off a cliff, hitting .187, though he did have a .808 OPS. If you look at just 1998-2000, the gap widens since 2001 was easily Sammy's best year and McGwire's worst.

[XZero771679666304]

But during the 1998-2001 stretch, (Sosa) was also a better hitter than Mac.

 

Based on what metric?

 

BA, I guess.

 

McGwire's OPS those four years was 1.112 to Sammy's 1.058, and that include's 2001 when McGwire started to fall off a cliff, hitting .187, though he did have a .808 OPS. If you look at just 1998-2000, the gap widens since 2001 was easily Sammy's best year and McGwire's worst.

 

I forgot just how many walks Mac drew in that stretch. :oops:

 

Sammy had significantly more hits and XBH during that stretch, and even if you compare just their respective 2 best seasons. Obviously Mac's ability to work the count and draw a ton of walks makes a difference as to the overall offensive package, though. I guess what I was thinking was that Sammy was more likely to hurt you with the bat alone (the ability to spray the ball all over with authority, and a greater variety of pitches) than Mac (who, even at his best was a pull field HR, a single or a walk).

 

Now if you could combine the best traits of both at their steroid fueled best, you'd get Barry Bonds (with a third the strikeouts).

[wvcbxl]

And the Onion chimes in with their take on McGwire.

 

Somewhat predictable. :-))

[Cubbie Swagger]

Does McGwire really know that much about hitting? I mean, really?

[NonProfitCow]

Does McGwire really know that much about hitting? I mean, really?

He obviously knows enough to get hired by a MLB team and turn down offers from another.

[Benchwarmer]

Does McGwire really know that much about hitting? I mean, really?

He obviously knows enough to get hired by a MLB team and turn down offers from another.

 

Cue the Wavin' Wendell Kim highlight reel.